Ex Parte Sebok et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12700032 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121700,032 02/04/2010
129916 7590 05/02/2016
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP (DITC)
100 East Wisconsin A venue
Suite 3300
Milwaukee, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Sebok
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
026212-9020-00 7072
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, TERESA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID SEBOK, SERGUEI GOUZEEV, HORST F. BRUNING,
and IV AN CHARAMISINAU
Appeal2014-0001464
Application 12/700,0321
Technology Center 3600
Before, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and ROBERT J.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for correcting and reconstructing a plurality of
projection images based on detected patient motion that occurs during
an imaging procedure, the method executed by an imaging system
1 Appellants identify Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-0001464
Application 12/700,032
including a computer with an electronic processing unit and a memory
module storing a projection matrix calculation module and a
reconstruction module, both executable by the electronic processing
unit, the method comprising:
obtaining, at the computer, a plurality of projection images
generated by a scanner during the imaging procedure, each of the
plurality of projection images including at least three markers, each of
the at least three markers having a measured three-dimensional
position and measured positions on a detector panel of the scanner in a
first dimension and a second dimension;
determining, with the electronic processing unit, a position
error vector for each of the plurality of projection images based on the
at least three markers in each of the plurality of projection images, the
position error vector defining patient motion in the projection image;
combining each position error vector for each of the plurality of
projection images with geometric parameters associated with the
scanner to derive a projection matrix for each of the plurality of
projection images; and
generating reconstructed images corrected for patient motion
from the plurality of projection images and the projection matrix for
each of the plurality of projection images.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Kantrowitz US 2007/0106152 Al May 10,
2007Kazuo Hayashi et al., Three-dimensional analysis of orthodontic tooth
movement based on XYZ and finite helical axis systems, The European
Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access, pp. 1-7 (pub. Oct. 18, 2007).
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 4---6, 11, and 14--16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kantrowitz (US 2007/0106152 Al, pub. May 10,
2007) in view of The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access.
2
Appeal2014-0001464
Application 12/700,032
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kantrowitz in view of The European Journal of
Orthodontics Advance Access further in view of Launay (US 7, 110,614 B2,
iss. Sept. 19, 2006).
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kantrowitz in view of The European Journal of
Orthodontics Advance Access in further view of Aso (US 7,312,795 B2, iss.
Dec. 25, 2007).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kantrowitz in view of The European Journal of
Orthodontics Advance Access in further view of Gordon (US 5, 109,397, iss.
Apr. 28, 1992).
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Each of independent claims 1 and 11 recites, in pertinent part,
determining, with the electronic processing unit, a
position error vector for each of the plurality of projection
images based on the at least three markers in each of the
plurality of projection images, the position error vector
defining patient motion in the projection image;
combining each position error vector for each of the
plurality of projection images with geometric parameters
associated with the scanner to derive a projection matrix for
each of the plurality of projection images; and
generating reconstructed images corrected for patient
motion from the plurality of projection images and the
projection matrix for each of the plurality of projection images.
3
Appeal2014-0001464
Application 12/700,032
Appellants argue that:
even though Kantrowitz discloses obtaining an image of a
patient implanted with RFID fiducial markers prior to
performing the treatment procedure, Kantrowitz only uses this
image to determine the "vectoral distances between the markers
and a target mass" (paragraph [0019]). These vectoral
distances as described in Kantrowitz do not define patient
motion in the image.
(Appeal Br. 10).
Appellants also argue that EP Journal "'tooth movement' described in
the EP Journal is not patient movement occurring during an imaging
procedure." (Id. at 11).
The Examiner finds that EP Journal discloses
determining, with the electronic processing unit, a position
error vector for each of the plurality of projection images based
on the at least three markers in each of the plurality of
projection images, the position error vector defining patient
motion in the projection image (EJ, see at least Fig. 1, Page 1;
Para. 3, Page 2, Para 2-4, Page 3, Para. 1 (lines 1-16).
combining each position error vector for each of the plurality
of projection images with geometric parameters associated with
the scanner to derive a projection matrix for each of the
plurality of projection images (EJ, see at least Fig. 1, Pages 1,
Para. 3, Page 2, Para. 2-4, Page 3, Para. 1 (lines 1-16).
Final Act. 3.
We agree with Appellants. Our review of EP Journal reveals nothing
of generating reconstructed images corrected for patient motion from the
plurality of projection images and the projection matrix for each of the
plurality of projection images, as required by independent claims 1 and 11.
At best, EP Journal determines a discrepancy between images, rather than
reconstructing images for corrected patient movement. This is because the
4
Appeal2014-0001464
Application 12/700,032
movement sensed in EP Journal is movement of the tooth relative to the
body, e.g. jaw bone, and not the movement of the entire body relative to the
imaging system. Thus, the tooth movement in EP journal is what the image
process seeks to determine, and is not an unwanted part of the imaging
process to be accounted for as error in considering the result of the final
image. Accordingly, we will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1 and 11.
Because claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend either from one of
independent claims 1 and 11, the rejections of dependent claims 2-10 and
12-20 likewise cannot be sustained.
DECISION
REVERSED
5